Another World Cup - another defeat to Australia at the hands of a determined English team. Predictably, the build up to the game was full of the usual hype, most notably by the Australian Rugby Union boss John O’Neill stating that all Australian sports fans hate England.
I’m no rugby expert, but from what I saw, England went into the game with a plan to stifle the opponent - a perfectly sensible game-plan when facing such a quick Australian side. And the plan paid off. The Australian pack was no match for the strength of the English front row.
The Wallabies were beaten not wholly by skills on field (the English team still has a long way to go in this respect), but also by tactical decisions.
The Sydney Morning Herald takes a different stance. They don’t seem to recognise that any element of strategy was involved in England’s win, stating that:
Australia ended their worst World Cup campaign by losing to a substandard England
and going on to say that:
Losing a World Cup final is forgivable. Being defeated in a quarter-final by B-grade opponents isn’t.
Such bad losers! If England are a sub-standard B-team, what does that make the Wallabies?
I think that The Guardian makes a valid point in it’s analysis, noting that neither the Wallabies nor the All Blacks play in knock-out competitions outside of the world cup.
There is a big difference between playing in group/league competitions and playing in knockout tournaments. Just ask any Liverpool fan!
Categories: General | 5 Comments »